Some reality on controlling CO2 emissions

OP-ED: "The Real Cost of Tackling Climate Change," by Steven F. Hayward, Wall Street Journal, 28 April 2008, p. A19.

Reality of some of these emission cut targets is that they ask America to go back to early 20th-century levels of emissions with a population that, in 2050, will be roughly four times what we had in T.R.'s time.

None of this is to say we don't try, but reality will be that we seek efficiencies largely for economic competitive reasons than for pollution control.

As always, trust greed and not altruism, even that directed toward future generations.

Comments

[Alan Klement]

Sort of OT, but I remember reading an essay from the 50's - some social commentary- and in it the arthur celebrated the nuclear age. Nuclear powered airplanes, ships and cars were only a decade away.... Funny how ideas of the future and it's reality can differ so.

[VoteWithTroops]

Dr. Barnett wrote "As always, trust greed and not altruism, even that directed toward future generations."

Tom is right again. Free markets (i.e. profits) drive innovation for a better mouse trap, not government mandates. Key point from the article ...

"To stay within the magic number, average household emissions will have to fall to no more than 1.5 tons per year. In our current electricity infrastructure, this would mean using no more than about 2,500 KwH per year. This is not enough juice to run the average hot water heater.

You can forget refrigerators, microwaves, clothes dryers and flat screen TVs. Even a house tricked out with all the latest high-efficiency EnergyStar appliances and compact fluorescent lights won't come close. The same daunting energy math applies to the industrial, commercial and transportation sectors as well. The clear implication is that we shall have to replace virtually the entire fossil fuel electricity infrastructure over the next four decades with CO2-free sources – a multitrillion dollar proposition, if it can be done at all." Then tackle the industrial, commercial and transportation sectors too.

Pure fantasy. But this is one of your best article-reference posting ever, thanks! Every pollution hating American should read this article http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120934459094348617.html?

[Bob Kawaratani]

The median age of the coal fired power plant stock in the United States which indicates that much of the stock will be replaced over the next few decades. The same applies to the nuclear power plant stock as well with the median age being about 30 years.

Although I agree that greed will be the driver, we desperately need to have an adequate policy and regulatory framework to ensure that we don't the kinds of rush and stop actvitiy that has been exhibited during the California electricity supply problem (thank you Enron) of several years ago or the recent rush to corn ethanol.

A rationale energy strategy emphasizing energy security will probably result in significant reductions in greenhouse gases assuming new coal capacity is restricted. Of course, what gets subsidized, etc. will be wrangled over again in the new administration.

[TEJ]

Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) project never really got off the ground, if you'll excuse the pun. Idea was to have a manned bomber in the air for weeks at a time, but reactors are a concentrated heavy load, then you have to add lead to protect the crew, and then there's reactor integrity in a crash, which requires more metal. . . . soon you're trying to lift a building off the ground with an engine that takes half a day to ramp up to full power. 'Atoms for peace' was a catchy slogan, though. Not that that has anything to do with the topic.

[notchris]

When you consider that we use about 13% of the electricity generated - most of the rest is lost in dispersed heat, line inefficiency - you begin to realize the technical challenge facing us.

How many incandescent light bulbs do you have in your house? A 19th century technology that is marginally more efficient than when invented at Menlo Park and it is not even 20% efficient - the vast majority of the energy used to power it goes off as heat.

The challenge is developing and deploying efficient technologies that allow the same if not improved quality of living.